I was talking of the specialists actually. And Kyle Mills is, in my mind, better than Jon Lewis until Jon Lewis shows that he can consistenly take wickets at international level... by actually doing so. I rate Lewis, but that doesn't mean he escapes actually having to perform to be considered good.

Because Mills has shown that he can consistently take wickets at the international level? 2006 is Mills' first good year, hes been largely quite poor before that, and hes only played some 7 games this year. One would think that is comparable to the number of games that Jon Lewis has played in his career and come out with a much more superior record.
Im not saying Lewis is a better bowler, i just think they are quite similar, and theres no way anyone can claim that Mills is a better one than Lewis.

I'll debate this point in more detail when to I have more time, but for now I'll mention that Symonds doesn't face the new ball every day... or ever.

And as we all know there are so many players in world cricket averaging over 40 down the order in international cricket. While almost every half decent player batting in the top 3 in the world is averaging at or around 40.

England have come on massively overall since 2002/2003, NZ haven't. So it is pointless going back that far for England. Also I'm not interested in Kasper or Gillespie being out of form, someone is bound to be out of form it's just tough luck. It's not like they had been rubbish for years against other sides and that bowling attack most certainly compares with anything NZ have faced except possibly their last game in the CT.

The relevance of them being out of form is that it seriously weakens the strength of that Australian side. The team that England played in the CT last week was clearly a hell of a lot better and in much better touch than the one they played in the NWS.

And seriously, what are you talking about regarding England's improvement compared to New Zealands? It's blatantly obvious that New Zealand have come miles since the last World Cup. They have a fairly similar bunch of players, but most of them have improved a long way (look at Styris, Oram and McCullum for instance), and they gel much better as a side and their results are hugely improved.

England on the other hand have four players in common with the side they played at the last WC, in Flintoff, Trescothick, Collingwood and Anderson, while the rest of the team is pretty much universally filled with poorer players than before. You think England wouldn't jump at the chance to have Nick Knight, Alec Stewart of Andy Caddick in the ODI side now compared to what they've got? Adding one good player in Pietersen and an improved Flintoff doesn't make up for the rest of the team.

Because Mills has shown that he can consistently take wickets at the international level? 2006 is Mills' first good year

As opposed to how many good years from Lewis? Righto.

Sreesanth said, "Next ball he was beaten and I said, 'is this the King Charles Lara? Who is this impostor, moving around nervously? I should have kept my mouth shut for the next ball - mind you, it was a length ball - Lara just pulled it over the church beyond the boundary! He is a true legend."

We're talking about ODIs here. Facing the new ball in 90% of matches means 4 or 5 of swing and 20 overs with the field up. You certainly don't need a particularly good technique against pace bowling to succeed as an ODI opener - look at Chris Gayle for instance.

Anyway, I don't really see how it's even close between these players, but as Jono said if you think Trescothick is as good as Symonds just because he faces the new ball, then surely that argument would mean that every half-decent opener is better than a great middle order batsman.

Facing the new ball also generally means facing the best bowlers (against Aus, WI, SA, NZ, Pak at least) and having to bat for a longer period of time in addition to facing those few overs of swing. The benefit Symonds has is that he genuinely comes in against the backup bowling attack on a surface that has properly flattened out, without the prospect of batting for as long as Trescothick does.

There's a reason why middle order batsmen in ODIs tend to average more than openers.

Bowls, and is one of the best fielders in the world. On top of that he's absolutely devastating with the bat at times, and since the WC has been brilliant.

He's the better player alright.

Its closer if you count just batting, but even so, I reckon most teams would rather Symonds than Trescothick. Even if he doesn't face the new ball. Otherwise you could use that argument for every good but not great opener against great middle order batsmen.

And I reckon that Trescothick is one of the best ODI openers in the world and it's not a position that just anyone can succeed in.

Symonds only averages marginally more than Trescothick and scores centuries at a far less frequent rate. Granted, Symonds doesn't get as much time to bat, but it's really my whole point as to why you can't categorically call Symonds better than Trescothick.

There's a reason why middle order batsmen in ODIs tend to average more than openers.

They don't, though. As TEC pointed out, almost all of the top averaging batsmen in ODIs right now bat in the top 4.

Hussey doesn't, Pietersen usually bats in the top 4 these days but has done well at 5, then there's Sarwan, Dhoni, Tendulkar, Clarke, Kallis, Dippenaar, Ponting, Yousuf, Lara, Martyn, Hayden, Gayle, Inzamam, Dravid, Smith and Symonds. That's all the players who currently average 38.63 or more, though Symonds recent average of 45 cuts a fair few of them out.

Of those, all bar Dhoni and Clarke have most of their success (and spend most of their time) batting in the top 4. Yousuf and Inzamam are borderline cases. If anything, good quality ODI batsmen who bat lower in the order usually average significantly less, as they have to throw their wickets away to up the run rate. Witness the likes of Razzaq here. You can only maintain a good average in the lower order by being not out regularly. There's certianly no evidence at all that batting in the top order in ODIs is harder in terms of average, it simply requires a different skillset and different batsmen have success there. You have to deal with opening bowlers and the new ball, but you can hit boundaries at will and don't need to face spin for the first 15-20 overs of your innings. The reason Hussey bats at 7 isn't because he's crap and must be protected from the new ball, it's because he has a unique ability to find gaps in the late overs, something Symonds also possesses that he wouldn't need if he was opening.

Regardless, even if you think Symonds and Trescothick are equivalent batsmen, surely Symonds bowling, fielding and scoring rate rate put him ahead.

I consider England's batting lineup good enough to avoid the side being labelled poor with the likes of Pietersen, Trescothick and Flintoff to name a few, it's just the bowling that's stopping you from regularly beating the top few teams in the world.

But having said that I do believe NZ are the better ODI team at the moment. I'm glad we're only playing against you in ODIs this summer. Tests would be truly embarrassing.

So that explains why Australia keep beating you then, even with weakened sides - think it is now 2 wins out of the last 18 against them now for you lot and one of those wins involved one of the worst Australian sides for a decade or so (the other was a dead rubber).

Then add in NZ's inability to raise their game whenever it means something, such as in a World Cup. They've no realistic chance of winning the World Cup and no realistic chance of beating a high strength Australia when they're up for it.

Still gotta laugh at this. You really can't stand NZ can you? Why keep pointing at our record v Australia as some sort of indication that we're a poor ODI side? People have subsequently shown that England's record is no better, that NZ can almost never field a full strength side either, and that England haven't won anything in the one day game.

Pretty much every team has a lousy record against Australia in recent times. If you must focus on NZ's record, how about that we just beat the number 2 and 3 teams in the world, and that the last time we met England, we gave them a shellacking?

We're not odds-on to win the World Cup or anything, but we are a better ODI side than England atm, full strength or not.